https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68156
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Fiodar from comment #0)
> I need to build libsupc++ only, any libc not aviable.
That's not possible.
--disable-hosted-libstdcxx means that the libstdc++ that gets built and
installed will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68127
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68133
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68089
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
The error seems correct to me, the function is only a friend of its first
argument, not its second. Friendship is not transitive, just because the
function friends with C and C is friends with C that does n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68139
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67941
Ben Longbons changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b.r.longbons at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68166
Bug ID: 68166
Summary: [6 regression] fold-const.c:12040:18: error: aggregate
'md5_ctx ctx' has incomplete type and cannot be
defined
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68165
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
See also PR 56118.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46588
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19276
Bug 19276 depends on bug 46588, which changed state.
Bug 46588 Summary: ICE with assumed character length function
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46588
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46588
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 19:20:36 2015
New Revision: 229606
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229606&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/46588
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
--- Comment #9 from kargl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 18:27:14 2015
New Revision: 229596
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229596&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/51993
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 18:13:50 2015
New Revision: 229594
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229594&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-15 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/51993
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38979
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51993
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68106
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Makarov ---
The problem was in ignoring hard registers explicitly present in machine
description insns by LRA rematerialization subpass.
I'll wait for a few days before backporting this in gcc-5-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68106
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Fri Oct 30 17:45:16 2015
New Revision: 229593
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229593&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/68106
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41102
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68165
Bug ID: 68165
Summary: Not constant-folding setting vector element
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: missed-optimization
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68106
--- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov ---
(In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0)
> Created attachment 36594 [details]
> reduced testcase
>
> The testcase fails at aarch64 at both trunk and 5-branch with -O
> -flra-remat. I haven't managed to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41102
--- Comment #15 from dr.i.j.bush at googlemail dot com ---
I'm happy to close,
Ian
On 30/10/2015, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41102
>
> Dominique d'Humieres changed:
>
>What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41102
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #14 from Domi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163
Bug ID: 68163
Summary: GCC on power8 does not issue the stxsspx instruction
on power8
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68164
Bug ID: 68164
Summary: Destructor side effect unexpectedly elided
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60739
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60122
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68154
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36192
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68154
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 17:00:23 2015
New Revision: 229592
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229592&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68154
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36192
--- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 16:58:20 2015
New Revision: 229591
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229591&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/36192
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68162
Bug ID: 68162
Summary: Incompatible pointer type using a typedef
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36192
--- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 16:46:20 2015
New Revision: 229590
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229590&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/36192
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68154
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Fri Oct 30 16:26:59 2015
New Revision: 229588
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229588&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-10-30 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/68154
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51024
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68161
Bug ID: 68161
Summary: Inconsistent behaviour of unnamed field with
inheritance.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68148
--- Comment #2 from Matt Godbolt ---
That would make sense for my second observation; but if it's a per-call thing
why is only one of the calls speculatively devirtualized?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68160
Bug ID: 68160
Summary: Can bind packed field if it's packed with #pragma
pack(push, 1)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
Alexandre Oliva changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159
--- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
==15226==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-overflow on address 0x7ffc3cac8938 (pc
0x00421867 bp 0x7ffc40d5a970 sp 0x7ffc3cac8940 T0)
#0 0x421866 in d_print_comp cp-demangle.c:5429
#1 0x421866 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68064
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor ---
I have proposed committing the fix on the mailing list
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-10/msg03383.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68114
Ivan Sorokin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68159
Bug ID: 68159
Summary: Demangler crash (GDB PR 19190)
Product: gcc
Version: 5.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68158
Bug ID: 68158
Summary: Function attributes parsed incorrectly in C++ (while
-fcilkplus)
Product: gcc
Version: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
--- Comment #4 from Alexandre Oliva ---
s/ifcvt/ifcombine/ above, sorry
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083
--- Comment #3 from Alexandre Oliva ---
This is a latent problem in ifcvt, that pulls the computation involving the
uninitialized k out of the always-false condition. Things go down the hill
when k's default def gets coalesced with b, and rtl op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68157
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68157
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
(gdb) l
1213
1214 if (gimple_code (s2) == GIMPLE_PHI)
1215return false;
1216
1217 gcc_assert (gimple_uid (s1) && gimple_uid (s2));
1218
1219 if (gimple_uid (s1) <
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68157
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> > Otherwise this might need bisection.
>
> Note that I cannot do easily the bissection on darwin due to a lot of
> bootstrap failures in the range r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962
--- Comment #20 from Christophe Lyon ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #19)
> whatever reason for. So the testcase would need adjustment with hw_misalign.
check_effective_target_vect_hw_misalign needs to be updated to include arm
ta
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68157
--- Comment #1 from a.niemoeller2 at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 36620
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36620&action=edit
preprocessed file (*.i*)
uncompressed file was to large
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67982
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Otherwise this might need bisection.
Note that I cannot do easily the bissection on darwin due to a lot of bootstrap
failures in the range r224161-r224647. If nobody volunteer to do the bisection,
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68157
Bug ID: 68157
Summary: internal compiler error: in
reassoc_stmt_dominates_stmt_p, at
tree-ssa-reassoc.c:1287
Product: gcc
Version: 5.1.0
Status: UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> That's odd, it does fine with reshape on my machine sigh
Are you sure to have attached the right patch?
> Could you send me the error, please?
Compiling the test in comment 5 gives
pr571
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, ranjan.amit8 at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68028
>
> --- Comment #5 from martin ---
> Hi Richard,
>
> There are the changes came af
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #11 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com ---
Dear Dominique,
That's odd, it does fine with reshape on my machine sigh
Could you send me the error, please?
pack generates a completely new ICE in the most peculiar place.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68148
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57117
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 36618
> --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36618&action=edit
> A completely different approach to the fix.
>
> This one does far better and is less invasive. It
67 matches
Mail list logo
